Na that's just not true re Watson. He is an attacking batsman, but he isn't Gilchrist. Most of his 50's have come at SRs around 50-70, which means the vast mjaority of time he has seen off the new ball. I am probably in a minority (maybe with you here) but I I didn't have much of a problem with Watson being a consistent 50 and out player. The only problem was he hasn't been able to maintain it. If he could have kept his average above 40 doing it, I wouldn't think much of it.

This is why we had a problem with Watson scoring 50, though (apart from the fact that it wasted good starts, exposed the middle order needlessly, failed to set up the innings in the way Clarke/Ponting would etc). Good form doesn't last forever and you have to make it count when you can.

This is why we had a problem with Watson scoring 50, though (apart from the fact that it wasted good starts, exposed the middle order needlessly, failed to set up the innings in the way Clarke/Ponting would etc). Good form doesn't last forever and you have to make it count when you can.

It's rare for a player to be able to consistently make medium range scores essentially over their entire carer, but it's not without precedent - e.g. Redpath. So yes, it was always unlikely Watson would have been able to maintain the amount of 50's he was pumping out, but not impossible.

Your other points just tie in with the whole 'what is better, a 50 and 50 or 100 and 0' debate, which frankly I think is just pretty meaningless, especially with regards to openers. As AlanJ said, a primary role of an opener is to see of the new ball. So if anything making two 50's in both innings is going to expose the middle order less than a 100 and a small score in the next innings.

'a primary role of an opener is to see of the new ball' is a bit outdated imo. i mean, this ain't early 20th century england. besides which of course the opener is expected to see past the first 10 overs or whatever. everybatsman is expected to be able to see through the first 5-10 overs of his innings. but it seems only openers are allowed to turn their coat in once they get past that point. it's just as important for an opener to actually cash in big after getting past the toughest part of his innings nowadays, which of course was watson's big failing

Also, it wasn't merely that Watson didn't go on with it, was how he got out too. You've opened and your team is 3 for <100 after a woeful, woeful start, if you nick out going for a big drive, you haven't done your job. It meant some **** had to come in at 4/100 (still far from safety) and do the spade work with the added pressure of knowing they were the last of the specialist bats but it also lets the oppo know that you're rattled. That gives them more confidence against the rest of the order which is a really crap advantage to hand them on top of your wicket.

Think its about time these ideas were dismantled that runs scored at any time in the match mean the same (they don't), that scoring regular half-tons is perfectly fine (depends on team balance; Redpath could do it because he had heavy scorers after him in the order) and that every wicket is an independent event (they aren't; even professional cricketers aren't robots, they get rocked like we all do under the right circumstances).

Also, it wasn't merely that Watson didn't go on with it, was how he got out too. You've opened and your team is 3 for <100 after a woeful, woeful start, if you nick out going for a big drive, you haven't done your job. It meant some **** had to come in at 4/100 (still far from safety) and do the spade work with the added pressure of knowing they were the last of the specialist bats but it also lets the oppo know that you're rattled. That gives them more confidence against the rest of the order which is a really crap advantage to hand them on top of your wicket.

It's not a false dichotomy because it doesn't even attempt to describe all of the possible outcomes - it's pretty clear it's just meant to be an example of two contrasting scoring patterns which sum up to the same total of runs (or 'average' across the match), and can be used to illustrate if each pattern has a different effect on a match as a whole.

What do you mean it's not how cricket works? It's an example of two scoring patterns which DO occur in cricket all of the time. Hence, you can look at those two scoring patterns, and come up with arguments about the advantages/disadvantages each pose in the context of a game.

25 and 124 is what normally would occur. openers getting regular **** alls get crucified rightfully, it's their job to get past 20. but once they get there, they need to make the most. ie get a hundred.

bringing it back to warner, much like gilchrist in ODI's in fact, if you want him to open he would actually be a candidate for a 100/0 pattern, and if you acknowledge that and have someone solid coming in a 3 you can create a different and useful arrangement.

I actually think we need to learn who out of huss and punt we need to move on after this summer, because I can't see either giving it up, or us moving forward with the both of them there.

Mumblings of discontent with Watson's injuries and presence/personality around the team in the papers today. None of them necessarily verified, but will be interesting to see if anyone comes to his defence officially.